ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2021
The implementation of a commercially available multi-gene profile test for breast cancer characterization in a department of pathology: what have we learned from the first 100 cases?
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of risk assessment in 1652 early ER positive, HER2 negative breast cancer in a real-world data set: classical pathological parameters vs. 12-gene molecular assay (EndoPredict).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analysis of breast cancer prognostic and predictive factors is still nowadays poorly accurate and standardized. The advent of multi-gene expression profiles (MGEPs) has improved the prediction of breast cancer outcome, particularly regarding early luminal breast cancers (LBCs). The availability in our Institute of EndoPredict® (EP), a last-generation prognostic gene signature assay, has prompted us to study a series of LBCs, firstly verifying its reproducibility on six routine representative cases, either presenting non-optimal preanalytical conditions or different tumor samples from the same patient; secondly, correlating EP results on 8 retrospectively recruited samples with patients' follow-up; thirdly, applying prospectively EP on 100 routinely diagnosed cases, assessing the oncologists' and pathologists' attitude toward it. The complete reproducibility of EP on all the samples investigated in the first phase allowed to state that EP overcomes the detrimental effects of an inaccurate pre-analytic phase, determining the most appropriate prognostic and predictive parameters of breast cancer. The second phase confirmed EP as a fundamental tool in guiding therapeutic decision, improving the classical bio-pathological characterization and recovering 38% patients' inadequately managed. Finally, the study disclosed how oncologists sometimes inadequately requested EP, but also how it allows a better stratification of breast cancer otherwise considered poorly aggressive and not requiring an EP test, such as G1 neoplasms or tubular histotype. In conclusion, the introduction of EP test in an Anatomic Pathology Department emerges as a useful tool in routine breast cancer diagnosis, both for the characterization of individual cases and, as a result, for more appropriate therapeutic choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.